Print document
 76 of 94 
of conduct which we see evidenced by the defendant during the 1970s and 1980s. That is why we
say that it answers the question: who is Viktor? In the circumstances it can only be Viktor
Oschenko. The idea that there is some other Russian KGB officer, not Viktor Oschenko, who is
handling him is ridiculous.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I do not find that ridiculous at all at the moment. I tell you why. We
have heard that training runs are conducted abroad; we have heard they all go to school and learn it.
I would have thought, if you all go to school, at the end of the day you all run it in much the same
way. I cannot see why there is anything about what Viktor Oschenko is doing that is peculiar to
Oschenko. I would have thought that it is peculiar, if it is peculiar, to every Russian case officer.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, but that is not the point, with respect. What appears to be
being said in response to your Lordship’s argument, which was that the evidence in respect of the
’phone call and the defendant’s activities around 8th August does tend to show that he was going to
hand over documents from his place of work to a Russian, and that that was in some way connected
with a Russian called Viktor. Once you get to that point in the argument, it is then a very small
distance to answering the question: which Russian Viktor, who is a member of the KGB, are we
talking about? It is only the surname that we are needing to put in place; that is the only thing I have
to do, and that is what Mr. E does. He just says that the Viktor is Oschenko; that is the effect of it.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Mr. Tansey starts, I think, from a different premise to you. He says that
you are only entitled to call Mr. E once you have established that the Viktor in the ’phone call is
Oschenko and to - and the jury would be satisfied about that. You are putting it a slightly different
way. You are saying that E’s experience would help the jury come to the conclusion that Viktor is
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: What I am saying is that, in deciding whether the Crown have
proved that Viktor was Viktor Oschenko and who recruited the defendant, they are entitled to look
at the whole evidence. There is a particular significance about Viktor Oschenko in relation to the
events of Thursday, 6th. If it was only just some Viktor who was referred to in the ’phone call and
not Viktor Oschenko, the events of Thursday, 6th do not bear their proper interpretation, we say.
The significance of the 6th is not so much what the defendant did; it is what the Russians did not do
on Thursday, 6th. They did not turn up to keep the meeting in Harrow. That was because they knew
that Viktor Oschenko had defected -- who had handled the defendant -- and therefore the
likelihood was that he would have given a list of agents he handled to British Intelligence who would
be on the look out, and that is why they did not turn up, in my mind.
It is important to the resolution of that issue that we are enabled to complete the picture in
demonstrating the significance of Viktor Oschenko on 6th August.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Can I go back Mr. Solicitor. I am not quite clear about that. The
telephone call and the arrest took place on 8th August.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Saturday morning.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Reference to 6th August comes in one of the so-called tradecraft notes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: No indication that the purported meet on 6th August was known to the
English or British Intelligence until that tradecraft note was found.